Home

Why the Poor Get Trapped in Depressed Areas

Personal savings rates have
plummeted, especially for the poor. Most Americans have less than $1,000 in savings for emergencies. So we shouldn't expect people who have an
income hovering around the poverty line to have the funds to rent a truck,
drive to an economically robust area (invariably with a higher cost of living),
and put down the money for rent and a security deposit on a place to live. And that's
if they can pass the credit check most landlords require without having a job.
The other option for those frozen out of a lease is a week-to-week motel stay, which is even more expensive.

Then there's the matter that
we don't make many social services--things like Medicaid, housing assistance, and
unemployment benefits--portable across state or, in some cases, county lines. Many
states have different eligibility requirements that present hardships for those
who fall into the gaps, especially given the differences between states participating
in Obamacare's Medicaid expansion and those that aren't. Re-enrolling for benefits
and risking gaps in coverage aren't tenable while unemployed; it prevents
families from taking those potentially beneficial risks, especially if they
have children. Moving to new cities without childcare figured out adds a similar
burden.

This is a result of policy: We've
made the safety net increasingly individual, and poorer Americans can't save
because their wages have been stagnant for decades. Moreover, as our safety net
has become more rooted in families taking care of one another, it has become
harder to leave. (Twice
as many adults live in homes with multiple generations today than in the
1980s, according to Pew Research.) Without long-term care possibilities, many
families get locked into staying put for the sake of their parents.

You can overlay any number
of explanations on top of this: Inequality, an aging population, aid programs
too tied to geography, or the high cost of housing in economic boom areas. But you cannot deny that the
barrier to moving for poor families is a financial issue, not a moral failing. Nobody
is shrugging and accepting that no jobs are available anywhere, as Drum would
have it. It's just that the people who need jobs have no access to them. This
creates an inequality feedback loop. If only those with a bigger personal
safety net can get to the areas where jobs are plentiful, it leaves behind
those locked into more desperate towns, ensuring that they have bleaker
futures. The good news is we can design policies to counteract that inequity.

At the moment we have trade adjustment assistance
(TAA) for workers who lose their jobs to foreign trade. But it's mostly limited
to skill gathering. (Relocation assistance to get people into better job
markets is part of TAA, but it's very limited and only available for a segment
of the population.) Enrico Moretti of the University of California, Berkeley, and Eli Lehrer and Lori Sanders of the R Street Institute have proposed broader
grants to better allow for greater mobility for all Americans, rich or poor. This
means unemployment benefits that scale up for higher cost of living, or
expenses related to relocating and undertaking a job search. And as Moretti
points out, lowering the population in economically stressed communities would
help those who stay better access jobs because of reduced competition.

If we recognize the benefits
to mobility, we should be more attuned to the barriers we place on it. Rather
than condemning families for their laziness, we could condemn the policies that
lock them in place, and work to change them.